Brookes, B.C. (1980). The foundations of information science. Parts I. Journal of Information Science 2: 125-133;
Houser, L. (1988) A conceptual analysis of information science. Library and Information Science Research 10: 3-34.
Saracevic, T. (1992) Information Science: origin, evolution and relations in Vakkari, P. and Blaise, C. (ed.) Conceptions of library and information science: Historical, empirical, and theoretical perspectives. Taylor Graham: London.
Schrader, L. (1984) In search of a name: information science and its conceptual antecedents. Library and Information Science Research. Vol 6, pp 227-271.
Be prepared to share your concept maps.
1. Brookes claims that if information science is about studying the interactions between world 2 and world 3 then we need better analytical tools. Can you suggest any? (Ian Conway, Melanie Feinberg, Ok Nam Park)
1. Houser (1988) says that sciences can study the same phenomenon but they do not study it in the same way. Discuss a phenonenon studied by information science and another discipline. How is the information science approach (definition, perspective, methodology, outcome etc) different from the discipline that shares an interest in this phenomenon? (Monica Liu, Ian Conway, Mike McMurray)
2. If information science is a distinct field to library science then it should treat or ask questions about subjects which library science does not. What are the questions that information science is asking that are not being asked by library science? (Peyina Lin, Deborah Turner, Ammy)
1. Why is information science (as Saracevic sees it) so closely connected with information technology? (Gifford Cheung, Ammy, Randy Kemp)
2. Information science is a field with a scientific and professional component. Can you distinguish these? (Eric Meyers, Phil Edwards, Ammy)
3. Complex problems demand interdisciplinary approaches and multidisciplinary solutions. What does this mean? (Monica Liu, Ian Conway, Deborah Turner)
4. Saracevic claims that there is an increasing awareness that information as a phenomenon and communications as a process should be studied together. Discuss. (Mike McMurray, Melanie Feinburg, Peyina Lin)
5. Saracevic claims that information science is reaching a critical juncture in its development. The pressures are coming from:
 |
a technological imperative |
|
|
accelerating evolutions and development of the information society |
|
|
changing interdisciplinary relations |
Explicate each of these pressures. (Monica Liu, Ian Conway, Deborah Turner)
6. The human-technological relationship is the principal, weakly defined, unresolved philosophical and professional issue in information science. Discuss. (Gifford Cheung, Lisa Nathan, Phil Edwards)
7. Information is part of an ecological chain. Discuss. (Lisa Nathan, Deborah Turner, Randy Kemp)
1. Those who advocate calling the field informatics instead of information science claim that this term allows us to escape from the exaggerated status of a science and the unusual and somewhat exaggerated expectations. What are these expectations? (Mike McMurray, Melanie Feinburg, Ok Nam Park)
2. Have the major shifts in information science as a field of study and practice been linguistic rather than paradigmatic? Think particularly about the last decade and a half. (Phil Edwards, Randy Kemp, Peyina Lin)
4. The divisive and semantic discussions about the difference between library science and information science has emerged because graduate library schools have absorbed information science without changing their fundamental orientation towards library work. Discuss.
5. “It is the librarian or information consultant’s mediating function that gives unique identity to the domain of library and information science” (Schrader, 1984:249). Discuss. (Eric Meyers, Lisa Nathan, Ok Nam Park)
Last two pages of Neill available here: Neill_2.pdf
Buckland, M. (1991). Information as Thing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 42 (5), June: 351-360.
Neill, S.D. (1987). The dilemma of the subjective in information organization and retrieval. Journal of Documentation. September, pp. 193-211.
Meadow, C. T. and Yuan, W. (1997). Measuring the impact of information: defining the concepts. Information Processing and Management, Vol. 33, No. 6 pp. 697-714.
Wersig, G. and Neveling U. (1975) The phenomena of Information Science. The Information Scientist, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 127-140.
Be prepared to explain, compare and discuss the approaches to information described by Wersig and Neveling (1975)—the structure approach; the knowledge approach; the message approach; the meaning approach; the process approach. (Melanie Feinberg, Deborah Turner, Ammy)
Find the overlap between these approaches and Buckland’s (1991) Information as thing; information as process; and information as knowledge. (Ian Conway, Peyina Lin, Mike McMurray)
Elaborate Dervin’s Information 1, 2 and 3. (Deborah Turner, Ammy)
What is an information bearing object? What isn’t? (Eric Meyers, Ian Conway, Randy Kemp)
Information is a construction (discuss). (Eric Meyers, Peyina Lin, Melanie Feinberg)
Information is a communication process (discuss). (Gifford Cheung, Eric Meyers, Peyina Lin)
What is the difference between information and knowledge? (Mike McMurray, Deborah Turner, Ammy)
Which comes first—meaning or information? (Monica Liu)
Can we say, “This is not information”? (Lisa Nathan, Ok Nam Park, Randy Kemp)
Does information exist independent of observers? (Lisa Nathan, Gifford Cheung, Monica Liu)
Is all information subjective? (Phil Edwards, Monica Lie, Ok Nam Park)
What are the attributes of information? (Phil Edwards, Ok Nam Park, Melanie Feinberg)
How can we measure the value of information? (Phil Edwards, Lisa Nathan, Gifford Cheung)